If you’re unfamiliar with Mitt Romney’s decision to turn a tragedy in Libya and Egypt into a political opportunity DURING the attack on Americans at the embassy … you can read more about that HERE.  So Romney’s campaign is now saying that under a Romney presidency … the whole event wouldn’t have happened.  That’s ballsy and stupid.  9/11 happened under Bush; does he also feel that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened under him … after all – the Bush administration received many warnings of an imminent threat on American soil and he did nothing.  And – the Libyan government has already arrested four individuals for their involvement in this crime (source).

The Romney campaign is really, really pathetic.  We haven’t even buried the Americans protecting the U.S. embassy and now they’re saying Obama is responsible for “an American ambassador assassinated” because they are so desperate to make it appear that Obama is Jimmy Carter and Romney is Reagan.  But Obama ain’t Carter and Romney is no Reagan (source).

The Washington Post has the story HERE:

“There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation,” Richard Williamson, a top Romney foreign policy adviser, said in an interview. “For the first time since Jimmy Carter, we’ve had an American ambassador assassinated.”

Williamson added, “In Egypt and Libya and Yemen, again demonstrations — the respect for America has gone down, there’s not a sense of American resolve and we can’t even protect sovereign American property.”

The aggressive approach by Romney’s campaign thrust the issue of foreign policy to the forefront of the presidential campaign a day after the Republican candidate was widely criticized for blasting Obama while U.S. embassies in Egypt and Libya were under attack.

Richard Williamson is the name of the senior foreign policy aide who made that comment; he is a former assistant secretary of state under the Ronald Reagan administration.  The Romney campaign of course is suggesting that he would be “tougher” than the oh so very weak President Obama.  They are not saying that the world would love us more under Romney … just that they’d be tougher.  He went on CNN after that interview with the Washington Post and said this HERE:

“A Romney administration would be there, would be more active trying to work with civil society, with reformer movements, so we would be partners in this evolution, not running behind.”

But the Romney campaign is filled with former Bush foreign policy advisers and if you think Muslims in the middle east dislike President Obama (and they do) … they HATED President Bush.  Under Bush – there was no reaching out to the other side … Republicans call that being “weak” after all.  So – at the very moment the Romney campaign is calling President Obama weak for being too conciliatory with those angry at America … he is saying the Romney campaign would do a better job at forging partnerships and diplomacy.  He says that’s the difference.  That’s hilarious and sad.

A recent Pew study has found that under President Obama – America’s image abroad has been significantly improved under President Obama.  The major opportunity is the Middle East based mainly off of America’s backing of Israel (unchanged under Obama) and anti-terrorism efforts i.e. drone strikes.

The Pew study found HERE:

Attitudes toward the U.S. are generally more positive today than in 2008, the final year of the George W. Bush administration. The biggest improvements in America’s image have occurred among Europeans – in France, Spain, and Germany, the percentage of people with a positive view of the U.S. is at least 20 percentage points higher than in 2008.

There is little support for Obama, however, in the predominantly Muslim nations surveyed. Fewer than three-in-ten express confidence in him in Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey and Jordan. And roughly a year after he ordered the Abbottabad raid that killed Osama bin Laden, just 7% of Pakistanis have a positive view of Obama, the same percentage that voiced confidence in President George W. Bush during the final year of his administration.

Outside of Pakistan, however, Obama consistently receives higher ratings than Bush did in 2008. This is particularly true in Western Europe and Japan, but it is also true in several predominantly Muslim nations where Obama’s ratings – while not especially high – are nonetheless more positive than his predecessor’s.

What the poll finds essentially is that the world loves America more under Obama significantly more than under Bush.  There was a lot of excitement and hope for an Obama presidency and since 2009 … support has waned vs. Obama’s first year in office but the rest of the world is generally happier with Obama as president than it was with Bush whom they regarded as a pariah in many cases.

Comments

comments